Marik
LetsFly<Snipped quote by Awson>
Because you can in theory be fined up to £2000 and forced off the train
How often do people get slapped with the full 2k?
Status
Recent Statuses
8 yrs ago
Current
why do I keep checking Spam
3
likes
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
How often do people get slapped with the full 2k?
How do "getting away with it" and "forced to pay 140" work together?
You fucking plebeians.
Let's say, for example, that there are only 5 kinds of movies: movies for young children, movies for tweens, movies for Highschool kids, light movies for adults, and graphic movies for adults.
When there was G, PG, and R, movies could fit in 2/2/1 and with plenty of line blurring. PG encompassed a large chunk of what mature human beings wanted to see. Good. Studios had no hesitation releasing a PG.
Then there was G, PG, 13, R, and NC-17. It almost lines up perfectly with the five types from before, but it is too weighted for the younger side. 13 isn't a perfect fit for high schoolers. Not good.
And then the middle, teenager rating was forced into becoming the "for everyone" rating. That way a single movie would be appropriate for an entire family to watch together. With no wiggle room.
They also took away a lot of wiggle room for R by becoming more strict with IDs in the last 10 years.
15 would be built around the idea of adding more wiggle room to "movies for everyone." You wouldn't even have to call it 15 or 16. Could be A for adolescent or YA for young adult.
You'd end up with:
Movies For Everyone With a Low Chance of Upsetting Kids. (PG-13)
And
Movies For Everyone With a Slightly Higher Chance of Upsetting Your Kids, But Will Make Dad Happier And Usually Be Fine If The Kid Is Like 14. (New rating)
When there was G, PG, and R, movies could fit in 2/2/1 and with plenty of line blurring. PG encompassed a large chunk of what mature human beings wanted to see. Good. Studios had no hesitation releasing a PG.
Then there was G, PG, 13, R, and NC-17. It almost lines up perfectly with the five types from before, but it is too weighted for the younger side. 13 isn't a perfect fit for high schoolers. Not good.
And then the middle, teenager rating was forced into becoming the "for everyone" rating. That way a single movie would be appropriate for an entire family to watch together. With no wiggle room.
They also took away a lot of wiggle room for R by becoming more strict with IDs in the last 10 years.
15 would be built around the idea of adding more wiggle room to "movies for everyone." You wouldn't even have to call it 15 or 16. Could be A for adolescent or YA for young adult.
You'd end up with:
Movies For Everyone With a Low Chance of Upsetting Kids. (PG-13)
And
Movies For Everyone With a Slightly Higher Chance of Upsetting Your Kids, But Will Make Dad Happier And Usually Be Fine If The Kid Is Like 14. (New rating)
And the actual worst tasting diet sodas, IMO, are the diet versions of the drinks I didn't care for in the first place.
Diet cream soda has to be the worst for everyone, if I had to guess.
Diet cream soda has to be the worst for everyone, if I had to guess.
No. You said Diet Mountain Dew was the most disappointing soft-drink, meaning that it tasted the worst in comparison to what you were expecting. You also said it wasn't the worst tasting, so you must therefore have expected it to be good, or at least better than other diet soft-drinks. My question was, why?
It's not bad tasting. It's drinkable. It doesn't taste bad.
The problem is that regular Mountain Dew is so powerful, and so DMD is a more noticeable step down than, say, a Diet Coke.
Okay.
So.
They fucked up the system.
Fine.
But the fact of the matter is--the harsh truth--is that the current system isn't going anywhere. There will be no major changes. There will be no overhaul. It is too big.
It has flaws from our perspective, but the large majority of moviegoers don't have a problem with it. Dumb moms want to be told exactly what is right for their kids to watch. They want no room for interpretation. And it doesn't matter if they are wrong or not, because they are large in numbers and are very loud. The moms are in charge.
It is flawed, but it is foolish to think that it can't be less flawed, or that trying to make a bad situation slightly better isn't worthwhile.
Having the original 3 ratings left a lot of room for PG, which was good.
Adding 2 more ratings changed the system to be more restrictive. Bad.
Obviously, the clear solution to have less restriction is to revert. But again, it's not going to happen.
So then how can we make the current system better without removing anything?
The ratings system has already turned restrictive. It made a big leap all at once. Adding another rating wouldn't necessarily make everything more restrictive. The binary jump between free and restricted has already been made.
However, I think that we can move around the restrictions.
Major movies are mostly being forced down one of two paths: PG-13 and R. Adding a third route in the middle would actually restrict them less. They go from 2 options to 3. How is that worse than now?
So.
They fucked up the system.
Fine.
But the fact of the matter is--the harsh truth--is that the current system isn't going anywhere. There will be no major changes. There will be no overhaul. It is too big.
It has flaws from our perspective, but the large majority of moviegoers don't have a problem with it. Dumb moms want to be told exactly what is right for their kids to watch. They want no room for interpretation. And it doesn't matter if they are wrong or not, because they are large in numbers and are very loud. The moms are in charge.
It is flawed, but it is foolish to think that it can't be less flawed, or that trying to make a bad situation slightly better isn't worthwhile.
Having the original 3 ratings left a lot of room for PG, which was good.
Adding 2 more ratings changed the system to be more restrictive. Bad.
Obviously, the clear solution to have less restriction is to revert. But again, it's not going to happen.
So then how can we make the current system better without removing anything?
The ratings system has already turned restrictive. It made a big leap all at once. Adding another rating wouldn't necessarily make everything more restrictive. The binary jump between free and restricted has already been made.
However, I think that we can move around the restrictions.
Major movies are mostly being forced down one of two paths: PG-13 and R. Adding a third route in the middle would actually restrict them less. They go from 2 options to 3. How is that worse than now?
@The Nexerus@Altered Tundra
It's not about being good. It's about being tolerable.
Regular soda is fucking rad. It gives me my caffeine, and it tastes awesome.
But at a point, some people decide that they no longer want to/can afford to drink so many calories on a regular basis.
Those same people can also have a hard time living without caffeine.
Thus, an unsatisfactory compromise was made.
It's not about being good. It's about being tolerable.
Regular soda is fucking rad. It gives me my caffeine, and it tastes awesome.
But at a point, some people decide that they no longer want to/can afford to drink so many calories on a regular basis.
Those same people can also have a hard time living without caffeine.
Thus, an unsatisfactory compromise was made.
Adding 13 then would be nothing like adding 15 or 16 now. I suppose that is the core difference of opinion, and also truly unpredictable.
I didn't watch that 20 min video, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at.
Adding 13 created a dichotomy. The split grew to be quite harsh.
Adding a middle ground to the current dichotomy is entirely different than the act of creating the split in the first place.
It's not as simple as "adding a new rating is bad, because adding 13 turned out to be bad."
Adding a third option for non-kiddy movies would play out absolutely nothing like adding 13 and creating the split.
It would change the formula entirely. It would be nothing like anything prior. There are no valid previous examples of doing this.
The 13/R split is its own unique entity. It influences the biggest movie production business in a major way.
A third option only helps the situation. While it isn't a big difference from 13 technically, it would create an opportunity for a new set of rules for a new rating. Every tiny amount of adult themes that can be added to a 13 movie will increase the satisfaction of mature audiences. Every small step towards less censorship and more realism attracts mature audiences.
Adults would be happier seeing a 16 than a 13.
16 year olds could actually see movies that are suited towards their interests without needing an adult.
And it's an easier jump for younger kids than a jump all the way up to R.
It's simply better than R in most cases. Actual R can be the new NC17.
I didn't watch that 20 min video, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at.
Adding 13 created a dichotomy. The split grew to be quite harsh.
Adding a middle ground to the current dichotomy is entirely different than the act of creating the split in the first place.
It's not as simple as "adding a new rating is bad, because adding 13 turned out to be bad."
Adding a third option for non-kiddy movies would play out absolutely nothing like adding 13 and creating the split.
It would change the formula entirely. It would be nothing like anything prior. There are no valid previous examples of doing this.
The 13/R split is its own unique entity. It influences the biggest movie production business in a major way.
A third option only helps the situation. While it isn't a big difference from 13 technically, it would create an opportunity for a new set of rules for a new rating. Every tiny amount of adult themes that can be added to a 13 movie will increase the satisfaction of mature audiences. Every small step towards less censorship and more realism attracts mature audiences.
Adults would be happier seeing a 16 than a 13.
16 year olds could actually see movies that are suited towards their interests without needing an adult.
And it's an easier jump for younger kids than a jump all the way up to R.
It's simply better than R in most cases. Actual R can be the new NC17.
It's just the most disappointing :(
© 2007-2025